What about the poor people's right to reproduce?

If government want to regulate something, they should try regulating acts that cause some non consensual victims.

When poor dumb people out breed the smart and productive, that's not victimless. The victim is either:

1. The kid, that is born to poverty.
2. Tax payers that has to support that kids.
3. More capable and productive individuals that are often forced to deviate from what maximize their income, within consensual means, taking care of the poor. In my country, for example, to keep practice license, doctors need to take care the poor in the morning. Those doctors can then make money in the afternoon. Businessmen could have made more profit hiring immigrants then citizen. Customers can buy cheaper products produced at other countries.
4. Many kids born out of violent abusive stupid dads, are also violent, abusive. They could become serial killers. Then more innocent die.

Because it's obviously not victimless, we think any men that cannot afford a kid through productive means shouldn't be helped to do so by government, and shouldn't make one.

Wouldn't that violate reproduction right?

Well, it's not victimless. It shouldn't be a right. However, that's not really necessary.

Even if poor men are allowed to breed all they want, it's unlikely they'll be able to find a woman willing to rent her womb when sex is less regulated.

Females want males for two things. Money, and high quality genes. Rich males can provide both. So the rich males are attractive. Those who slip through the crack will be very few, and they won't reproduce.

You see, there is virtually no law discouraging poor people from breeding. Ghetto studs pretty much knock up so many females producing financially irresponsible son and daughters that prefer financially irresponsible males. This cause poverty.

Yet there are many laws that discourage rich males from being promiscuous. Alimony, palimony, child support are all proportional to a man's wealth. Also prostitution is often prohibited. So a rich man that can attract 500 females, and can afford 1000 kids, cannot make that many kids.

Deregulating sex will flatten up the playing field. Now, those ghetto studs will have to compete with billionaires in getting as many chickz as possible. Less welfare cheques will be required out of you.

Isn't there anything we can do to the shagless cocks?

It's tricky. If we just force females to pick those males, like what we do now with laws encouraging monogamy, we reduce females' choice. I don't like forcing females. I don't like other males taking away females' choice even more. I mean, if some males are going to push females around, I'd rather it be me.

So how do we appease the less desirable males without reducing females' choices?

1. The poor in rich countries, may still be richer than the average in poor countries. They can import females from poorer countries. In ancient time, this females poaching are done by military conquest where the males of the weaker countries are slaughtered. Surely using wealth is way more humane and meritocracy.
2. To a small extend, the smart and rich often would rather appease their enemy than crushing them. If we expect too much tolerance they'll turn into a dictator. We can always hire some females out for those poor males.
3. We can invite women, not only to serve in the army, but also to serve the army. This will serve feminists interest of getting women in the army while facing less resistant from the majority of people in the organization.
4. We can subsidies prostitution as welfare through consensual donation. Each shagless male that are poor in money and spirit can score with a female like once a month to give them a taste of productivity. I am sure there are enough females that's crazy enough to join the program. Some females want to prevent the extinction of endangered species. Maybe they're willing to put their cunt where their mouth is.
5. Richer countries are countries that tolerate superiority more. It's reasonable then to give some benefits for the lesser cocks for doing that. After all, the lesser among the rich country might still be a good bargain for females, compared to the average of the poor countries. So, we can cheaply import (consensually of course) chickz from poorer countries or poorer regions to join the orgy. Want to promote individual freedom and capitalism in east Asia? Simple. Tell the Chinese that Americans are willing to import as many Chinese women as possible.  No self respecting males in any country wouldn't topple government that gets in the way of capitalism when the like of Zhang Zi Yi consensually get impaled by white cock for money. The poor country will breed less till their population is sustainable by their natural resources. There goes poverty. As of now, the Chinese and Rusian are getting rich too. So you should aim at other country. Try the Arabs, Sudans, Afghanistan. Whenever a country commit female infanticide, genital mutilation, wife's burning, burgha enforcement. Just tell those chickz, "Hei, living in that country sucks isn't it? Come to richer countries and you can suck better cocks while getting paid for it." Quick, before every other countries are too rich for this strategy to work.

There are many more ways.

Isn't that harsh that the poor don't make kids?

Not really if you look at this. Do you really want to make kids? How many? The most advance people in the world, the European, make very few kids even though they have way more sex than the rest of the world.

Poor people make kids due to government schemes that want to create more poverties. Government tell everyone to get married. Once a man get married, they have a reproductive resources all by himself, might as well use it all the way.

I mean c'mon. If you're poor, do you want to make kids? I didn't when I was poor. Making kids while being poor didn't work in the gene pool in the past, so that's not our instinctive preference now.

Humans want sex, not reproduction. In ancient time, where our instincts are evolved, sex means reproduction. We do not evolve need for reproduction, we evolve crave for sex.

Now, while males' biological reproductive capability far exceed females, females have more sex capability. Not knocking chickz up doesn't have to mean not having sex. Our species invent contraception remember? With contraception many females will be willing to be used by many males. They don't risk pregnancy anyway.

Also, while some males attracts many females, some females might choose to serve more males. So most males still get their share of sex. Now, what should we do to those who slip through the crack? Give them food, shelter, and chance to be productive to proof their worth and those people can be rich again too.

Of course, women's market price will be greatly improved that offers from rich males are not regulated. Now, females will be able to choose to be mistresses of a rich men, prostitutes, secretary, personal assistant, and many more.

With all those choices, poorer males may not be able rent a high quality woman. That's why many males might disagree with it. Well, that's their problem. Can't please anyone.

You see, while I am often accused of treating females like objects, I actually respect females choices. I think females should have the right to choose to do whatever they want with their body. No man have a right to interfere that certain females' choices are wrong as long as the females do not violates other individual's right.

The only way a man can breed is if they can persuade a female to rent her womb to him. If women have right to commit abortion, which is arguably murder, why they don't have right to rent or freely lend her womb to the highest bidder, or any male they want based on any consensual terms?

Now, with far less poor people and many more smart productive people, with very little welfare, poor people can then be taken care of.

Moreover, even if it was harsh, so what? Are you against women's right to choose?

If some males get many females, the other will get none?

First of all, it's their problem.

However, it's not true. In ancient time, it's the case because females cannot be promiscuous too. Part of the reason is probably to give intensive for poor males to join the army instead. Another possible explanation is to decide fatherhood, and hence allowing correct inheritance distribution.

While there will be polygamy, there will also be polyandry. Males aim for quantity and females aim for quality. However, the other way around work too to a much lesser extend.

Women, for example, might prefer to share a sex partner in top 99% quality percentile than be the only one for 5 partners in top 90% percentile. Male, would pick the latter.

However, women too, would rather have 5 male sex partners rather than having to share one with the same quality.

Males are also not infinitely promiscuous too. Guys like Bill Gates, Mike Tyson, Michael Jordan, Leonardo de Caprio, have capacities. There's enough for the rest of us. If we don't like it, then we simply need to proof the quality of our genes by making more money than Bill Gates. That's what I am doing.

All women will definitely be benefited. Productive Men are happy surrounded with many beautiful females. Women's happiness is decided by the quality of men she got rather than the quantity. Basically women will have all choice because they all can aim "higher". Women whose desirability is in the top 70% can then aim for a male in top 90% desirability and so on now that more rich males are available to females when mistresses, and prostitution is lawful.

What about the undesirable males?

It's their problem. Allright allright, let me think of a solution for them. There are always good solutions for every problem.

When sex is deregulated, females will have way more choices. They can insist on being the only one for a male at the expense of quality. They can choose to be mistresses and share a rich male instead. With so many choices available for females, I would imagine that no or very few females want to settle for a poor dumb weak males.

It's not that bad. The main thing that the less capable males have to lose, is their pride. Do you think those males get laid now? Not a lot.

While, deregulating sex will definitely benefit richer males, it'll benefit even the parasitic too, and hence all between.

Poor males are not aiming for making kids. They're aiming for food, shelter, and a reasonable chance to productively get rich. They don't have enough of that.

Look at the world around us. There are so many poor males living in sub human condition. I cringed when I saw a little boy trying to sell a newspaper at me. 

Deregulating sex means those kids would not have been born into that misery in the first place. His mother could have chosen a rich male and her kids will not be born out of poverty.

If it's combined with meritocratic economic system, it will greatly motivate people to be productive. This will create abundance.

Helping the poor can be done often without sacrificing a single dollar, rich males in developed country can hire lots of Ethiopians. The poor got helped while the rich profit themselves too. This will lead to a far higher abundance. The amount of those who slips through the crack and become really poor will drop by 95% within 1 generation.

The poor will then have enough food, shelter, etc. Far smaller percentage of unnatural altruism will be needed for those who do slip through the crack. Star Trek fantasy will become a reality much sooner.

What about if males that fail to attract females go berserk and kill?

Oh... I am really scared. If we don't appease their low quality cocks they'll hurt us all.

Surprise surprise... That is the one main reason behind all those sex laws actually. To appease lesser cocks from getting laid. All this time I am afraid of the wrath of God. If it's only the wrath of lesser cocks, we have bigger thing to worry.

If some less capable people insist on violating others' individual freedom for his interest, appeasing them is an even more dangerous idea. Appeasing evil encourage it. Rather than appeasing, many smart males choose to strike back. You see, why fear the less capable?

Those who are able to build great wealth productively are also able to rule violently. Never underestimate the power of a small number of people with large IQ. I'd fear them more than the dumb school bullies.

Many smart people are tired of appeasing the less capable males. They simply become dictators. Embrace meritocracy and capitalism, and we'll go to abundance. Embrace deviation from it, and we'll go back to feudalism and despotism.

No matter how we twist things, the best and brightest will always be the one on top of the rest. Deregulation of consensual sex and economy will ensure that the CoTams will aim for wealth through productivity rather than power through coercion.

For comment, link exchange request from related website, please email comment@CocksoftheAlphaMales.Com. In particular I need more sources to strengthen or reconsider my points.

Get plenty of tips to survive in the gene pool from http://GenePoolSurvivalGuide.com. Primitive affiliate programs are available. From the same author that brought you http://HowtoLearnMath.com.